Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photoshop system

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 19, 2004 6:07:22 PM

I am planning to build a new system to run Photoshop CS. I'd like some recommendations for hardware. My current system is: AMD 2800+, 1GB PC 3200, two 120GB WD drives(ATA) Asus A7N8X Deluxe MB, GeForce4 MX 420 Video. 3 fans, 2 CD drives, card reade. . . and a partridge in a pear tree! Yada Yada Yada. . .
Need a faster system running filters on 300+ MB images brings the system to it's knees. Also not enough storage. And backups are another problem. I'm thinking a SATA terabyte RAID. Am I better off with Dual CPUs or AMD's 64? Would either of those options be LOTS faster than a 32 bit 3200+? Any help is appreciated!

Electronics run on smoke, if you let the smoke out, they quit working!

More about : photoshop system

March 19, 2004 6:46:12 PM

Humm... I can surely say that intel based system should gives you better performance in Photoshop.

So, f I were you I would bay a P4C 3.0/3.2GHz with 2Gig of RAM and 2 fast HDD, like the Seagate 7200.7+ in RAID to have even more performance (or keep your current HDD and put them in a RAID array). Don't forget to upgrade your video card to something very good for 2D edition. Matrox offers good 2D signal quality.

If you have TOO MUCH money, you can buy a P4 Extreme Edition, cost nearly 1000$US only for the CPU.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
March 19, 2004 8:02:07 PM

P4 3.0C is surely faster than AXP 2800+ in Photoshop, but performance difference is not worth buying new CPU + mobo. Moreover, both Socket 462 and Socket 478 platforms are have poor upgradability.

I suggest waiting for LGA 775 P4 and Socket 939 based A64.

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
Related resources
March 20, 2004 12:22:31 PM

Quote:
P4 3.0C is surely faster than AXP 2800+ in Photoshop, but performance difference is not worth buying new CPU + mobo.


<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/prescott-t..." target="_new">Xbit Photoshop chart</A>

I think he would see a good speed improvement.
XP 3000+ = 344
P4C = 259
(lower is better)

P4C is 33% faster than XP 3000+. If he upgrade from a XP 2800+ he will process files at least 35% faster.

--
Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
March 20, 2004 2:40:47 PM

30% is nice increase, but I'm not sure its worth an upgrade that costly really. Its his money of course, so he be the judge.

Good link though, should be helpfull for the original poster. It seems some operations under photoshop are way faster on newer cpu's (like reduce size, 3x as fast !), others do not change much, or are even slower on the P4 (watercolour, accented edges). If he uses PS all day long, he should have a good idea of what sort of filters/operations he typically uses that take too long.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
March 20, 2004 3:03:20 PM

I agree with TheRod on everything he said. Also you want a lot more memory then 1Gig if you’re working with 300mb+ files. With a new mobo like TheRod suggested, you can get 800 fsb. If your current 1gb is 1 chip, go get a matching one (Exact same brand and model) and put them in as a pair. If it's 2 chips (I hope they're the same), make sure you get a mobo with 2 memory channels (4 memory slots) and get another 1gig, at least. Make sure your new memory is in 2 chips, to get the 800 fsb you need a pair of DDR400 chips.

You didn't give us enough info to recommend the optimum backup solution. You looking to just archive data, or do you want something for disaster recovery? How much new data do you have in an average week?
March 20, 2004 4:15:33 PM

I currently use 2 120gb drives one for system one for backup and photoshop scratch pad. Over the years I've backed up to: floppies (I'm getting old), Tapes (to slow & poor random access), CDs (doesn't hold enough data), and hard drives (best solution so far). I shoot about 1 to 2 gig of RAW images per week. about 10 (18 meg ea) images go to photoshop and become about 200Mb each. I'd like both archive and disaster recovery in a single system. I'm thinking about backing up over the Internet to an off-site system at a friend/relatives house (with high speed Internet of course) and maybe a SATA RAID 5 for local storage. What do you think?

Electronics run on smoke, if you let the smoke out, they quit working!
March 20, 2004 4:53:00 PM

If your friend has a solution for you (i.e. knows what software package to use and everything) then the offsite is the best. It’s always nice to have your data in multiple physical locations in case of fire or theft. Another thing that might do the trick for you is a DVD writer. Over 4 gigs of data can be stored on 1 disk and the random access is great. Also, that would free you up to use your current drives in a RAID 0 configuration. This should boost your HD access. If it was me, I would buy another 120 GB drive and go Raid 5. This would give you 240GB of data with great performance, and the ability to loose 1 drive and not loose your data.

So, for backup, I would do the following:
1. use your friends system for off site storage (Always a great thing)
2. Get a DVD writer ($150 bucks) for your local weekly backups.
3. get an IDE RAID 5 card, unless you can find a mobo with it built in.
4. get another 120 gig HD.

It sounds like a lot, but it’s not that much money.
March 21, 2004 11:57:25 PM

How long does it take to burn 4 Gb on a DVD? Also I'm wondering about a video card for multi monitor set-up.

Electronics run on smoke, if you let the smoke out, they quit working!
March 22, 2004 12:47:59 AM

I just put 4 gig on a DVD the other day, I think it was around 20 minutes with my 4x, but not sure. It was 3 a.m. and I was dead tired :) . That's info that some review should be able to provide you.

As for the video card, Matrox has some good cards with multi monitor support. Although, so does ATI and NVIDIA. Depends on what you want to do with it. If it’s just a work PC I would lean towards the Matrox. But if after you’re though with a hard day’s work you want to play some 3D games, the Matrox is not near as good as an ATI/NVIDIA solution.
March 22, 2004 2:31:26 PM

Thanks all, I appreciate you input!

Electronics run on smoke, if you let the smoke out, they quit working!
!